No, they are not.
So, you have no counter cite.
https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1311&context=ils
Neither all terrorist activities, nor all counter-terrorist military
operations, even when they have some international dimension, necessarily
constitute armed conflict between states. Terrorist movements themselves
generally have a non-state character. Therefore, military operations between a
state and such a movement, even if they involve the state’s armed forces acting outside its own territory, are not necessarily such as to bring them within the
scope of application of the full range of provisions regarding international
armed conflict in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Geneva
Protocol I.16…In many cases, the attributes and actions of a terrorist movement may not
come within the field of application even of the modest body of rules relating to
non-international armed conflict. Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva
Conventions is the core of these rules, but says little about the scope of
application. The principal subsequent agreement on non-international armed
conflict, the 1977 Geneva Protocol II, is based on the assumption that there is
a conflict between a state’s armed forces and organized armed groups which,
under responsible command, exercise control over a part of its territory, and
carry out sustained and concerted military operations. The protocol expressly
does not apply to situations of internal disturbance and tension, such as riots,
and isolated and sporadic acts of violence.17
• Since terrorist forces often have little regard for internationally agreed
rules of restraint, the resolve of the counter-terrorist forces to observe them
may also be weakened, given the low expectation of reciprocity and the
tendency of some part of the public under attack to overlook any breaches by
their own forces.
While application of the international humanitarian law of non-international armed conflict to the War on Terror cannot be ruled out, it is, admittedly,
not an elegant fit. We can dismiss AP II from having any bearing on terrorist acts
or on the War on Terror because its application requires control of the High
Contracting Party’s territory by an organized armed group (Article 1.1). If the state
that is a party to the conflict is not a party to AP II (for example, the United States),
or if the organized armed group controls no territory, then AP II does not apply.
Application of CA 3, on the other hand, does not require territorial control.
What is more, the GCs enjoy virtually universal adherence. Still, humanitarian law
cannot be applied to any situation until the following criteria are addressed…A terrorist group can conceivably be a party to an armed conflict and a subject of humanitarian law, but the lack of commonly accepted definitions is a problem…While application of the international humanitarian law of non-international armed conflict to the War on Terror cannot be ruled out, it is, admittedly,
not an elegant fit. We can dismiss AP II from having any bearing on terrorist acts
or on the War on Terror because its application requires control of the High
Contracting Party’s territory by an organized armed group (Article 1.1). ……
It is effective when properly implemented. Its very vitality and relevance
in the War on Terror stems not from any claim that it is capable of encompassing all of the exigencies of terrorism and the efforts to combat it. The strength of
humanitarian law lies, rather, in the fact that it is adequate to deal with such exigencies when they amount to armed conflict. There is little evidence that domestic and international laws and institutions of crime and punishment are not up
to the task when terrorism and the War on Terror do not rise to the level of armed
conflict. But there are powerful reasons to conclude that the application of
humanitarian law in those circumstances would do more harm than good.
So the Red Cross says that indeed terrorists do not fall within the Conventions, but perhaps they should. Maybe.
The protection of hospitals during armed conflicts: What the law says | ICRC.
Therefore, specific protection to which hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used by a party to the conflict to commit, outside their humanitarian functions, an “act harmful to the enemy”. ,When they are used to interfere directly or indirectly in military operations, and thereby cause harm to the enemy, the rationale for their specific protection is removed. This would be the case for example if a hospital is used as a base from which to launch an attack; as an observation post to transmit information of military value; as a weapons depot; as a center for liaison with fighting troops; or as a shelter for able-bodied combatants.
Which is what the IDF claims. So yes, i disagree with your quote as there are exceptions.
The army has claimed that Hamas is operating inside Shifa and underneath it in bunkers, some of which it says are accessible from the hospital itself. It also claims hundreds of Hamas fighters sought shelter at Shifa after the Oct. 7 massacre, in which at least 1,200 people in Israel were killed.
Alleged military use of al-Shifa hospital - Wikipedia.
According to Israeli officials, Hamas subsequently dug out the original basement, later adding new floors and connecting it as a hub within their existing tunnel system.[25][26]
A France24 investigation concluded that the images and videos of the tunnels published by the IDF were consistent with Hamas built tunnels.[27]
Note that you used France24 as a cite yourself.